|
Post by Banjo on Jun 14, 2016 9:58:34 GMT 7
A member has come up with some basic tables that may assist in predicting the likelihood of a DSP reassessment. These are known as an algorithm al·go·rithm ˈalɡəˌriT͟Həm/ noun noun: algorithm; plural noun: algorithms
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. "a basic algorithm for division"
(I knew this of course, I just looked it up in case some of you didn't). What I want see is a bit of brainstorming, that's coming up with whatever comes into your head that you think may effect Centrelink's decision to reassess someone. Now, I want to stress here that NO ONE will be allowed to ask why, want reasons or demand links to any suggestions, this is purely an exercise which may lead to a algorithm people can use to see whether or not they are in the hot seat. An example, already well discussed here would be 35 to 45 year age group. I'll put up the existing document later if the author gives me the OK.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jun 14, 2016 10:08:36 GMT 7
- not assessed under 2012 tables - Greater than 5 years since last review - 35-50 years old - 8hrs or more work capacity at last JCA - Less than 40 points under old tables - working 25-29 hrs per week (basing this on Centrelink's arguments in Trenter decisio) - Grant based solely on mental health condition Edit: studying 25 or more hrs per week
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 14, 2016 11:10:47 GMT 7
One that was come up with... multiple disabilities of less than 20 relying on total for DSP rather than a single disability of 20+.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 11:17:51 GMT 7
Those are all probable for sure . My three key ones though that are what I'm certain will be their criteria. - 35 plus in age - Not assessed under 2012 tables which also applies to anyones points under old tables. (Most crucial since anyone that's had review since 2012 should not be called in since the measure focuses on those who did not.) - 8 or more hours a week JCA.
Anything else mentioned is possible but I believe the main three are their most likely algorithm.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jun 14, 2016 11:40:18 GMT 7
Also, those with multiple impairments making up the 20 points may be more likely to be selected for referral to government doctor(?) Then again, maybe each JCA will have a quota to fill (for referral onward) and it's just a lottery as to whether the DSPer becomes part of the unlucky 10,000.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jun 14, 2016 11:48:05 GMT 7
Also, those with multiple impairments making up the 20 points may be more likely to be selected for referral to government doctor(?) Then again, maybe each JCA will have a quota to fill (for referral onward) and it's just a lottery as to whether the DSPer becomes part of the unlucky 10,000. 10,000 a year go to the medical doctor so that's 30,000 it total over 3 years. maybe if the liberals lose it wont go ahead
|
|
|
Post by muggins on Jun 14, 2016 12:26:41 GMT 7
psychological, depression, anxiety, working, studying alcohol/drugs use
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jun 14, 2016 12:35:36 GMT 7
Also, those with multiple impairments making up the 20 points may be more likely to be selected for referral to government doctor(?) Then again, maybe each JCA will have a quota to fill (for referral onward) and it's just a lottery as to whether the DSPer becomes part of the unlucky 10,000. Yes a lottery , probably depending a lot on who does your work capacity assessment if its a nice understanding person or a nasty unsympathetic person who sends you straight to the government doctor
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 13:11:08 GMT 7
Also, those with multiple impairments making up the 20 points may be more likely to be selected for referral to government doctor(?) Then again, maybe each JCA will have a quota to fill (for referral onward) and it's just a lottery as to whether the DSPer becomes part of the unlucky 10,000. Referrals could also be a formality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 13:20:47 GMT 7
Could I branch slightly off the topic to add that if you fall into the categories above (which I think are accurate) then I implore you to act NOW and secure medical reports from specialists, a GP report will not suffice.
I suspect the reviewers rely on people going in unarmed, so to speak, then they've got you.
|
|
|
Post by gized on Jun 14, 2016 14:33:35 GMT 7
- not assessed under 2012 tables - Greater than 5 years since last review - 35-50 years old - 8hrs or more work capacity at last JCA - Less than 40 points under old tables - working 25-29 hrs per week (basing this on Centrelink's arguments in Trenter decisio) - Grant based solely on mental health condition Edit: studying 25 or more hrs per week Not being rude or disrespectful, but this is not what will happen. Gized
|
|
|
Post by gized on Jun 14, 2016 14:34:57 GMT 7
Also, those with multiple impairments making up the 20 points may be more likely to be selected for referral to government doctor(?) Then again, maybe each JCA will have a quota to fill (for referral onward) and it's just a lottery as to whether the DSPer becomes part of the unlucky 10,000. 10,000 a year go to the medical doctor so that's 30,000 it total over 3 years. maybe if the liberals lose it wont go ahead Murphy, I again doubt this one also. I can tell you for certainty, anyone 5 years away from Age Pension, will not be reviewed. Gized
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 14:35:43 GMT 7
At least a couple of those will be what happens. - Not assessed under 2012 tables, 35 plus group.
Whether the rest are the criteria is speculation at this point but possible. I think they'll pick the same way they picked the under 35s which means program of support also since the measure extends from the existing one.
|
|
|
Post by gized on Jun 14, 2016 14:38:35 GMT 7
It will not be based on age.
I am confident of this.
You have to read and read between the lines and the law.
It will not be based on age.
Thats my view.
Gized
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 14:40:10 GMT 7
I think age will be a part of it. Young people were already done, and audit was talking about people not done under new tables which are the older group probably 35-45. I agree anyone near pension age likely won't be so I'd say the age group would be 35-45 or 50.
|
|